TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (1) TMI 233
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tricted by the AO by invoking the third proviso to Section 32(1) (ii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961? ii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble ITAT was right in law in upholding the decision of CIT (A) directing the ITO to allow deductions under Section 80HH and 80I of the Income Tax Act, 1961 without adjusting the losses of other loss making industrial undertakings of the same assessee with the profit of eligible profit making units?" 2. A few facts relevant for the decision of the controversy involved as narrated in the appeal may be noticed. The assessee company claimed deduction under section 80HH and 80I of the Act at Rs. 12097161/- and Rs. 1,40,34,259/- respectively. During the course of assessment proceedings, it was noticed by the Assessing Officer that the assessee company had six industrial units and deduction under sections 80HH and 80I of the Act was claimed on the profits of eligible profit earning units without adjustment of the losses incurred in the other units. The Assessing Officer rejected the claim and allowed deduction after making adjustment of the losses incurred by the loss making units which were also industrial underta....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....). Learned counsel for the assessee also relies upon CIT Vs. Devidayal Rolling Refineries Pvt. Ltd. (1984)40 CTR 191 (Bombay). 6. Learned counsel for the revenue, however, submits that component of benefit under Section 80-I has to be worked out with reference to total income after excluding the loss therefrom as provided under Section 80AB read with Sections 80A(2) and 80B(5).Reliance has been placed upon the following judgments:- (i) Distributors (Baroda) P. Ltd. Vs. Union of India (1985) 155 ITR 120 (SC); (ii) H.H.Sir Rama Varma Vs. Commission of Income-Tax (1994) 205 ITR 433 (SC); (iii) Commissioner of Income-Tax Vs. Macmillan Co.of India Ltd. (2000) 243 ITR 403(Madras); (iv) Commissioner of Income-Tax Vs. Chemical and Metallurgical Design Co. Ltd. (2001) 247 ITR 749 (Delhi); (v) Commissioner of Income -Tax Vs. Nima Specific Family Trust (2001) 248 ITR 29(Bombay); and (vi) Synco Industries Ltd. Vs. Assessing Officer of Income-Tax and others (2002) 254 ITR 608 ( Bombay). 7. In order to appreciate the controversy, it would be appropriate to refer to the following provisions:- "80A(1) xx xx xx" "80A(2) The aggregate amount of the deductions under this Chapte....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y provisions. It will be appropriate to make a reference to the following observations in the said judgment:- "Learned counsel for the assessee, however, contended that the law to be applied is that laid down in the case of CIT V. Canara Workshops P. Ltd. (1986) 161 ITR 320 (SC). It was held in that case that for computing the profits for the purpose of deductions under section 80E of the Income-Tax Act, 1961, the loss incurred by the assessee in the manufacture of alloy Steels (a priority industry) could not be set off against the profits of the manufacture of another product. The assessment year considered in that case was the year 1966-67. The Court, in the course of its judgment did not refer to Section 80AB of the Act and did not consider the effect of that provision as to whether it was declaratory or not, while the question was specifically considered by the Supreme Court in the case of H.H.Sir Rama Varma V,CIT (1994) 205 ITR 433. We are bound by the latter decision and the law declared therein is the law which we are required to apply for determining the extent to which deductions are to be permitted under several sections in Chapter VIA excluding section 80M. Learned cou....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed for less than 180 days. The appellant claimed full depreciation at the rate applicable to such plant and machinery. The Assessing officer did not accept the explanation of the assessee and curtailed the depreciation to 50% on the ground that the plant and machinery was used for a period less than 180 days during the previous year in question. The CIT(A) reversed the finding recorded by the Assessing Officer on this question. The relevant findings recorded by the CIT(A) read thus:- "4.1 On behalf of the appellant it was submitted that the Assessing Officer erred in restricting the depreciation to 50% of the amount calculated at the percentage prescribed in the case of block of assets comprising such assets. The appellant's submission in this regard was to the following effect: "Finance (No.2) Act, 1991 inserted a proviso (numbered as proviso No.3) the salient features of which are: i) That the asset should be acquired in the previous year and put to use for the purposes of business or profession in that previous year. ii)That the period of suer should be for a period of less than one hundred and eighty days in the previous year. iii)That if (i) and (ii) apply then t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t taxing statute cannot be interpreted on any presumptions or assumptions. The court must look squarely at the words of the statute and interpret them. It must interpret a taxing statute in the light of what is clearly expressed it cannot imply anything which is not expressed, it cannot import provisions in the statute so as to supply any assumed deficiency. Reference was invited to the repeated observations of Rowaltte J. In Cape Brandy Syndicate vs. Inland Revenue Commissioners (1921) 1 KB 64 (KB) at page 71: ".....in a taxing Act one has to look merely as what is clearly said. There is no room for any intendment. There is no equity about a tax. There is no presumption as to a tax. Nothing is to be read in nothing is to be implied. One can only look fairly at the language used" Their lordships observed that there is no scope for importing into statute words which are not there. Such importation would be not to construe but to amend the statute. Even if there be a casus omissus the defect can be removed only by legislation and not be judicial interpretation. There is no justification, held their lordships, to depart from the normal rule on construction according to which the i....